More handpicked essays just for you.
Sexual harassment in the workplace outline
Forms of harassment at work places and their remedy
Sexual harassment in the work environment doc
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Title and citation: McCurdy v. Arkansas State Police 375 F.3d 762 Type of Action: This is a Civic suit under Title VII civil right Act of 1964 for discrimination in view of sex, of a hostile or abusive work environment and allegation sexual harassment. Facts of the Case: McCurdy a dispatched who worked for Arkansas State Police Communication Center, filed suit for sexual harassment against Sergeant Hall, which happen within an hour time period inside of her work place. Issues: was McCurdy incident be classified as sexual harassment since it was just one single incident, which was stop the minutes the complaint was filed and should the Arkansas State Police department be liable for Sergeant Hall behavior? Contentions of the Parties: McCrurdy argues that she was exposed to an incident of harassment when sergeant Hall enter the communication center and grabbed her …show more content…
left breast and made undesirable remarks to her.
The district courts stated that Arkansas State Police department could not be held liable for Sergeant Hall misconduct, and granted summary judgement to Arkansas State Police based on its claims to an affirmative defense. Decision: The court affirmed the judgement of the lower court that complaint of sexual harassment. Arkansas State Police handle the allegation in a timely manner, where McCurdy was not subject to be sexual harassed again by Sergeant Hall. Reasoning: McCurdy was employed as a dispatched for Arkansas State Police Communication Center, on July 5, 2002 while she was on duty on evening watch in the communication center, Sergeant Daryl Hall came in the center. McCurdy alleged that Sergeant Hall cupped, touch or brushed against her left breast. McCurdy stated she advised Sergeant Hall that she did not appreciated what he had doing and asked him what he was doing? Sergeant Hall stated to McCurdy “oh stop it” you have a hole in your shirt, McCurdy said when she looked down to see if there was a hole in her shirt,
Sergeant Hall reply stop looking at your tits, and it didn’t stop there, Sergeant Hall continued to play with McCurdy hair asking her if she’s mixed with the African American race, asked her where is her uniform, Sergeant Hall stated if I was the chief your uniform would be panties and a tank top. McCurdy did not respond. McCurdy was so uncomfortable that she left the center and went outside, she also told the other dispatcher that she was not going to return until Sergeant Hall left the center. Another Trooper arrived at the center and McCurdy and Trooper re-enter the communication center, Sergeant Hall was still inside the center, he stated again to McCurdy “you have a sexy voice on the radio, you kind of turn me on, before leaving sergeant Hall hugs McCurdy again. McCurdy filed a complaint against Sergeant Hall sexual harassment. An immediately correction action was done, and Sergeant Hall was demoted to Corporal and then latter fired by the Disciplinary Review Board, Sergeant Hall appealed and got his job back but was transfer to a different work location. The courts used the similarly, with the case Ellerth/Faragher barrier verification of both components despite the fact that this outcome may seem cruel to decent business. Arkansas State Police Department handle this matter in a quick and corrected way that the action of Sergeant Hall was stopped immediately. Rule of Law: Under Title VII, whenever an employee endure a physical employment action because of the a supervisor at a single incident of supervisor harassment, the employer takes full responsibility, and if the action is consistent or repeated harassment only then will the employer be able to use the affirmative defense.
They reasoned that since Barnett didn’t either argue against the dismissal of negligence claim at the time of its dismissal or include the claim in subsequent revisions, she had no support for her claim that the court had erred in dismissing her claim of negligence. The court also ruled that the language of section 3-108(b) of the Tort Immunity Act meant that complete, unconditional immunity was to be offered if supervision was present. As a result of this interpretation, the issue of if the lifeguards had committed willful and wanton misconduct was rendered irrelevant. Since the issues of material fact raised by the appellant weren’t actually issues of material fact, the Supreme Court affirmed the District and Appellate Court’s motion and subsequent affirmation of summary
The Ward versus Polite case came to the Sixth Circuit United States Court of Appeals in 2011. The appellate case results from the 2010 lawsuit which the plaintiff lost. Both cases involve a self-professed Christian student, Julea Ward, in her third year of the Eastern Michigan University School Counseling program in 2009. As part of the program, all students are required to work at the university’s counseling center for 100 hours. Mrs. Ward was presented with a case file in which a student wanted counseling. The student had received counseling from the center before for depression stemming from his same-sex romantic relationship; though, the reason for this particular counseling session was unknown. Upon reviewing the file, Ward met with her supervisor, Professor Calloway. Her desire was to either refer the student to a
...that was the first thing that caught my interest, later when reading the case and discovering that two lower cases had both ruled against the plaintiff, that is when I decided to go further in the case. I wanted to know why it was that the lower courts had ruled against her anf not for her. The decision the court made was fair, I agree with the court. It was the fairest ruling the court could have made towards Suders considering that in reality she had lost the lower court ruling because of the fact she didn't really have sufficient evidence that indeed her supervisors had been harassing her. Therefore, I think the outcome of this particular case was fair and I would have to agree with the decision the United States Supreme Court made towards Suders.
This case involves a sophomore at a high school named Christine Franklin, who alleged that she was sexually harassed and abused by a teacher and sports coach by the name of Andrew Hill. These allegations were occurring from 1986-1988, a total of two years. These allegations included Hill having explicit conversations with Franklin, forcing her to kiss him, and forceful intercourse on school grounds. Franklin claimed that she let teachers and administrators know about the harassment and that other students were going through the same harassment. The result of telling the teachers and administrators was that nothing was done about the situation and even encouraged Franklin not
The concurring opinion was given by Justice Blackmun. He agreed with the majority opinion that the exclusionary rule is valid as long as the officer and magistrate act in ?good faith?, but he wanted to stress that it is not a rule to take lightly, that it may change with how cases such as this are handled in the future. (United States v. Leon ,
In 2005 NYPD Detective, first grade, James E. Griffith called internal affairs to report he was being pressured by a fellow officer to lie and take the blame during an internal inquiry for the mishandling of a homicide investigation by his unit (Goldstein, 2012). Another detective and union official claimed in his deposition that Griffin was a rat because he went to internal affairs instead of the union (Marzulli, 2013). According to the United States District Court Eastern District of New York’s memorandum of decision the retaliation was immediate, included adverse personnel actions and continued though out his career in different units until Detective Griffith was effectively forced to retire due to the harassment in 2009 (James Griffin v. the City of New York, n.d.). Griffin eventually filed a legal sit against The City of New York, the NYPD and two of the officers involved individually. This case study will analyze the incident, whistleblower laws and the ethical challenges involved.
Is Ms. Smith's dress relevant in this case? Can the city or Mr. McKenna use such testimony to rebut a claim of harassment?
Many people today argue that McCulloch v. Maryland is one of the most important Supreme Court cases in United States history. Three main points were made by Chief Justice Marshall in this case, and all of these points have become critical and necessary parts of the U.S. Government and how it functions. The first part of the Supreme Court’s ruling stated that Congress has implied powers under a specific part of the Constitution referred to as the Necessary and Proper Clause. The second section of the ruling determined that the laws of the United States are more significant and powerful than any state laws that conflict with them. The last element addressed by Chief Justice Marshall was that sovereignty of the Union lies with the people of the
The Baltimore City police have faced a myriad of problems in the last year. The riots following the Freddie Gray arrest were reported around the country and created a situation where the Governor was forced to call in the National Guard to protect the city. Community leaders report that African American’s are stopped, searched and arrested at a far greater number than Caucasian’s. The Baltimore city police are at an impasse with the community at this time, it is up to the city leaders and the police officials to come up with some real solutions to the issues that can no longer be ignored.
Any conduct an employee is subjected to that goes against their will and protected under the law thus qualifies to be harassment. For the case of Gregg V. Hay-Adams Hotel, Clark’s behavior qualifies to be harassment since they were unwelcome by Gregg. According to the allegations made by Gregg, Clark made suggestive remarks towards her, which she never appreciated. Secondly, Clark made physical contacts with Gregg, which the latter states were very unwelcome. The suggestive remarks Clark made towards Gregg affected her emotional stability in one way or the other. She found the working environment very unwelcoming. Additionally, when Clark made physical contacts with her, Gregg must have felt that the workplace was unsafe for her existence. We can categorize this form of harassment as a sexual harassment.
Officer Ryan’s perception of the situation at hand was one that led to an escalation. He pulled over Mr. and Mrs. Thayer though his partner warned him they did nothing wrong. His response was simply, “they were doing something.” Officer Ryan’s initial perception of Mrs. Thayer was incorrect, as he perceived her to be a white woman that was engaging in fellatio with a black man. Once Officer Ryan engaged in a conversation with Mr. Thayer and noticed how lightly he and his wife were taking the current situation, he became aggravated and asked Mr. Thayer to step out of the vehicle to perform a sobriety test. Once this incident occurred, Mrs. Thayer’s perception of Officer Ryan changed. She viewed him as a crooked and nefarious officer. As a result, the communication between Officer Ryan and Mrs. Thayer escalated as she became argumentative. Mrs. Thayer’s perception of Officer Ryan changed once again as he manipulated his “pat down.” Officer Ryan manipulated his “right” as an officer and as a result the communication between Mrs. Thayer and himself escalated. Furthermore, the communication between Officer Ryan and Mrs. Thayer escalated further when he stated that Mrs. Thayer had a “dirty mouth” and that Mr. Thayer would
Erdely, Sabrina Rubin. “The Rape of Petty Officer Blumer: Inside the military's culture of sex abuse, denial and cover-up”. The Rolling Stones Magazine. 14 February 2013. Web. 4 November 2013
Facts of the Case – In December 2005, Farrow alleged that Dr. Strange, the Medical Director of Radiology for St. Francis, made sexual propositions to her. Farrow stated that she rejected those advances and reported them to the human resources department. She then states that in February 2006, Dr. Strange made a sexually inappropriate comment to her. Farrow then stated that she informed the supervisor of Radiology, Eric Bandon, about the unwanted advances that she received from Dr. Strange and explained how the made her uncomfortable and made it difficult for her to work with him. Farrow claims that Bandon told her that he would look into it but he never ended up getting back to her about the issue. Farrow also contends that Dr. Strange made defamatory statements about the quality of her work. Specifically, she alleged that Dr. Strange falsely accused her of changing doctor’s orders and ignoring his instructions. She also claims that he berated, yelled, intimidated, and harassed her in front of other employees. Moreover, in October 2006, Farrow put documentation into her personnel file concerning Dr. Strange’s and St. Francis’ actions. She
Schipani, C. (2013). Class Action Litigation After Dukes: In Search of a Remedy for Gender Discrimination in Employment. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 46(4), 1249-1277.
However, police whistleblower is unfortunately all too rare. In the rare cases when other cops do muster the strength to and integrity to report gross misconduct of another officer, the whistleblower is often times ostracized, intimidated, threats made to the security of their jobs, and threats to their lives. For instance, Mr. Barron Bowling was awarded $830,000 due to the life long brain damage from a beating he received from a Drug Enforcement Administration agent Timothy McCue in Kansas City, KS. Timothy McCue claimed that Mr. Bowling resisted arrest. Fortunately a police detective names Max Seifert had the strength to report the wrong doings of the DEA agent. In doing so, he said reported that Timothy McCue threatened to kill Mr. Bowling, called him White Trash, and called him a system dodging inbred hillbilly. Members of the department destroyed photos of the physical damage done to Mr Bowling. Officer Seifert took the statement of witnesses and re-documented the physical and presented it to officials. For being a whistleblower, officer Seifert was forced into early retirement, lost a sizeable part of his pension, and retirement health insurance. In addition, his name and service was slandered and